Tag Archives: Slow Scholarship

OHD_BLG_0047 Delete as appropriate: Bad/Good Slow/Fast

Two weeks ago I had a chat with Ollie Hemstock from Northumbria University about Slow Design. We discussed the benefits and downfalls of slow and fast design and eventually wondered what makes fast good and what makes slow good. So I took up the challenge of defining good fast and good slow, and while I was at it, I also defined bad fast and bad slow. Making myself a little online mind-map I speedily popped down virtual post-its and quickly discovered that what makes a speed good is also sometimes the reason why it is bad.

  • Good Fast – Creative thinking under pressure, Google Sprint, First Aid. No overthinking. Magical solutions. Fail fast.
  • Bad Fast – Drawing on stereotypes and single narratives. Reducing information, and a lack of consulting. Can do damage.
  • Good Slow – Allowing ideas to grow. Future proofing. More room for nuance and complexity. Ethics.
  • Bad Slow – Obstructive bureaucracy. Sticking to the past. Minimal change.

Fast does not give you enough time think, which makes things less complicated but also reduces information and abandons nuance. Slow makes loads of room for nuance but can block change in fear mistakes. One is therefore not better than the other. But what happens when we combine the two.

Good Fast + Bad Slow

Good Fast is blocked by Bad Slow killing innovation. Good Fast means testing and failing fast but Bad Slow would put a stop any testing.

Bad Fast + Good Slow

While Good Fast is blocked by Bad Slow, Bad Fast and Good Slow stand in complete opposition. They simply cannot happen at the same time. Bad Fast is bad because there is little thinking, while with Good Slow there is loads of thinking. These two cancel each other out.

Bad Fast + Bad Slow

In this combination someone quickly solves a problem but then does not go back to reflect on it. For example someone does some botch DIY which works at first but really needs a long term solution, however bureaucracy and rules are blocking that long term solution from happening.

Good Fast + Good Slow

Instead of being blocked by Bad Slow, Good Fast releases information that is then integrated into Good Slow’s thinking process. Here there is an agreement between the two speeds that failure is good for the future but that you need to be able to put the breaks on at any moment. It is the ultimate feedback loop. Like a well run household, because sometimes you need a quick book under a table leg and other times you need to slowly work out where you actually what to put a shelf.

OHD_BLG_0055 Let’s do it slowly sometimes

One of the biggest problems I have discovered while trudging through the world of oral history is that people do oral history projects, make a website, and then that website inevitably dies. This really sucks and is very annoying when it comes to researching. The reason for this is mostly because of funding issues. You get a chunk load of funding for one project and that is it. This (I believe) is due to us living in an extreme capitalist world, which pushes people to think in quick wins rather than long term projects. This is for example the reason that governments and business are hesitant to pursue environmentally friendly options, because it costs a lot of money and the returns will only be seen way down the line.

However, there was one super slow, relatively ridiculous, and extremely expensive project during the Cold War that has deliver a truly insane amount of returns and profit – the space race. The space race was really really expensive but the technology it produced we still use to this day. (This might be why idiot billionaires really want to go to space, but that is another discussion.) The point I want to make is that we need to start embracing slow scholarship because I believe that overtime the profits will be a lot better than a handful of dead links.

But I also know that slow scholarship costs money and people need money to eat so maybe this is not the perfect solution. What might work is intermittent scholarship. If we build systems of data storages, and networks that support intermittent scholarship we might be able to avoid “drive by collaborations” and “project websites”. The best option would be that we change the funding system, but that is very unlikely to happen so instead intermittent and slow scholarship systems might actually be our best bet. I imagine that these systems will support collaboration over longer periods of time and allow scholars to exchange “hunches” and thoughts more freely.